Talk:Baron Hill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Louisville, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Louisville on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Edits by Dclegcounsel

I've reverted three edits:

• No source is provided for the statement that "Hill gained few votes and conceded defeat after nearly all counties were recounted." Please provide one before reinserting the language.
• The sentence "The group based those accusations on votes cast during Hill's tenure in Congress" is unverifiable. It's also unnecessary - the best possible interpretation is that they based the accusations on votes (the worst would be, say, that they deliberately lied; THAT would be newsworthy).
• The Citizens for Truth website is an unacceptable source, per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. And even if it was, it wouldn't be relevant: And Hill in no way is "smearing" the group, in the wikipedia article, when it says that Hill partly blamed the defeat on billboards purchased late in the campaign. Given the margin of the loss, that statement seems quite factual. "Blame" here is a causal statement, like "Supporters of Proposition X blamed their loss on the lack of funds to do adequate voter outreach."

-- John Broughton 20:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nonsense, John. It was widely reported in articles still available on line that Hill gained less than 20 votes in a quarter million dollar recount and conceded defeat. There is absolutely no supporting documentation for the claim that the recount was limited.
• Hill claimed the accusations were lies, however, www.citizensfortruth.com contains citations to U.S. Government sources for the supporting votes. How a partisan, self-laudatory campaign site IS appropriate, but a critic's site with documented citations is NOT is indefensible on any logocal basis, especially when the phrase "accused" leaves the reader with the impression that these were unfounded. This is pure POV spin.

-- User:dclegcounsel 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here rather than doing another edit before further discussion. My problem isn't with the text per se - it's with the lack of sources. That's why I didn't revert the statement that Hill voted for NCLB - because you DID provide a link to the page with the vote. (In the edit summary, which is the wrong place, but it was easy for me to move it to the article itself.)

For the recount, all I'm looking for is a (reputable) source to support the wording change. Otherwise, my problem is that the article has said "X" for a long time (without a source, true), and now someone (you) wants to change it to "not-X", still without a source. Which is right? How can I tell? If you add a source for the text you want, then I (and other editors) can check, confirm you're right, and leave the text the way you want it.

As for the accusations and Hill saying they were lies, there are several issues involved. First, at some point this really gets to be too much detail: Group said X, Hill said they were lies, group points to A, B, C, votes; Hill (possibly replies); etc. A second issue is that we don't really want to have an editor trying to judge whether the votes really prove what the group claims (that's "original research", not acceptable in wikipedia).

Having said that, I think something like this could be acceptable: "Hill blamed ads ...., which he said 'MUST BE QUOTE ABOUT UNTRUE, MADE BY HILL, HERE', WITH SOURCE. The group responded to Hill's statement by pointing to various votes by Hill [link to page by group goes here]." (Please note that I'm guessing, here, what happened; the paragraph in the article must conform to the facts, not to what I just guessed were the facts.)

John Broughton 12:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elections 2006 Section Deletions.

I removed the follow portion fron the elections 2006 section because I thought it slanted badly in both directions, and the purpose of wikipedia is to provide information, not slant.

'but voice calls continued. These calls included robo-calls that introduced themselves as being from the Dems that were actually Republican suppress-the-vote calls. The robo-calls were very long, and came at rude times such as 3 a.m. Similar calls against opponent Sodrel had been going on since Sodrel took office in January of 2004. However the investigation by the Indiana Attorney General did not begin until calls against Hill began.'

The following, "These calls included robo-calls that introduced themselves as being from the Dems that were actually Republican suppress-the-vote calls. The robo-calls were very long, and came at rude times such as 3 a.m." was added previously and removed before by someone else. However the line after it provides balance. As it was written with the whole paragraph removed it did provide slant, as in the calls were only against Hill. There was one cited call against Hill and many more against Sodrel. The following, "Similar calls against opponent Sodrel had been going on since Sodrel took office in January of 2004. However the investigation by the Indiana Attorney General did not begin until calls against Hill began." should remain.